State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarjeet Kaur vs Birla Sun Life Insurance Company ... on 3 July, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1197 of 2014
Date of institution : 27.08.2014
Date of decision : 03.07.2015
Amarjeet Kaur wd/o Sukha Singh r/o Machu Mandi Road, Kunde,
Ferozepur City.
.......Appellant-Complainant
Versus
1. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor, Jyoti
Complex, Above Indian Bank, Moga, through its Branch
Manager.
2. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., opposite Municipal
Council, Mittal Complex, 2nd Floor, Mall Road, Ferozepur City
through its Branch Manager.
........Respondents-Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order dated
28.4.2014 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri P.K. Bansal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Shri Nitin Thatai, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant-complainant, Amarjeet Kaur, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 28.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by her under Section 12 of First Appeal No.1197 of 2014 2 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not decided for want of territorial jurisdiction.
2. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, Sukha Singh, husband of the complainant, got his life insured for Rs.19,00,000/- by the opposite parties, which issued life insurance policy No.005253485. During the continuation of that Policy he died as a result of heart failure on 5.1.2012. Information about his death was given to the opposite parties and the necessary documents, including death certificate, were submitted with the Claim Intimation Form by the complainant, who was the nominee/claimant under the Policy. The Investigator was appointed by the opposite parties, who approached her and demanded huge amount for passing the claim but she did not oblige him. The Investigator might have submitted the report against her, as she did not grease his palm. To her utter surprise, her claim was repudiated by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 20.9.2013 on flimsy, false and baseless grounds in order to deprive her of her lawful claim. The story of the Investigator that the life assured was suffering from chronic kidney disease prior to his application for obtaining the insurance policy is totally false and baseless and has no substance. He had died natural death and on account of his death during the continuation of the Policy, she is entitled to the sum assured of Rs.19,00,000/-. In addition to that, she is entitled to Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for the mental torture and agony suffered by her on account of the deficiency in service and adoption of unfair means by the opposite parties; besides, First Appeal No.1197 of 2014 3 Rs.12,000/-, as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite parties.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed detailed joint written reply before the District Forum. The facts detailed therein need not be narrated in this order, as the District Forum did not decide the complaint on merits and came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. That finding was recorded after taking into consideration the preliminary objection taken by the opposite parties in para no.8 of the preliminary objections of the written reply and the evidence produced on the record. They pleaded in that para that the proposal form was filled at Moga and the premium was also got deposited at that place itself, whereas the Policy was issued from Mumbai. No transaction was ever held at Ferozepur and all the transactions had taken place at Moga and, as such, only the District Forum at Moga had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the District Forum failed to take cognizance of the fact that part of the cause of action accrued to the First Appeal No.1197 of 2014 4 complainant at Ferozepur also, which conferred territorial jurisdiction on it. The proposal form might have been submitted in the office of the opposite parties at Moga and the insurance policy might have been issued by the Mumbai office but all other transactions regarding the obtaining of the Policy took place at Ferozepur itself. It was the advisor of opposite party No.1, who represented the Policy details to the life assured at Ferozepur and obtained his consent at that place. Even the repudiation of the claim made by the complainant under the Policy was conveyed to her at Ferozepur, vide repudiation letter Ex.OP1&2/4. That also constitutes a part of the cause of action. Accordingly the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be remanded back to it for deciding the same on merits.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that no such transaction ever took place at Ferozepur and no part of the cause of action had accrued at that place. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by both the sides, the District Forum came to the correct conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint and referred the complainant to the appropriate District Forum.
8. The finding regarding the territorial jurisdiction was recorded by the District Forum without properly appreciating the evidence produced on the record and the law on the subject. It is the specific case of the complainant that she had submitted the Claim Intimation Form, along with the requisite documents, including Death Certificate, to the opposite parties. That Death Certificate was First Appeal No.1197 of 2014 5 proved on the record as Ex.C-4. A perusal thereof shows that the life assured/deceased had died at Ferozepur. It has already been held by this Commission in FA No.378 of 2014 decided on 11.2.2015 (Seema @ Seema Saini v. National Insurance Company Limited and another) that the District Forum of the place where the death of the insured takes place has also the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding the payment of claim in respect of that death. The cause of action means a bundle of facts, which a party is required to prove in order to establish the right/claim. It was necessary for the complainant to prove that the life assured had died and the place where the death took place also constitutes a part of the cause of action. As the death took place at Ferozepur, so a part of the cause of action accrued at that place. Moreover, it is clear from the documents proved on record by the opposite parties that the Policy in question was sent to the life assured at Ferozepur and even the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was conveyed to her at that place. Those also constitute a part of the cause of action. By ignoring all these facts and the law, the District Forum wrongly recorded a finding against the complainant that no cause of action had accrued within local limits of its jurisdiction. Such an order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded back to the District Forum for deciding the same on merits. The parties are directed to appear before it on 4.8.2015. The records of the District Forum be sent back immediately.
First Appeal No.1197 of 2014 6
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER July 03, 2015 Bansal